我国搜查与扣押制度的完善——从中美搜查与扣押制度比较研究谈起  

Comparative Research on American Search and Seizure System

作　　者：王弘宁[1] 

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院,吉林长春130012

出　　处：《法学杂志》2016年第7期134-140,共7页Law Science Magazine

摘　　要：在刑事法治方面,搜查与扣押问题是继刑讯逼供、高逮捕及羁押率之后我国刑事法治人权保护所面临的第三大障碍。司法实践中,侦查机关搜查与扣押权的行使常存在对公民权利的侵害,我国在搜查与扣押证、令的审批、搜查与扣押的时间、搜查与扣押的手段、搜查与扣押的内容等方面的相关立法存在纰漏。而美国在宪法及刑事立法方面的相关经验值得研究与借鉴。我国搜查与扣押制度在以下几方面应予完善:首先,在《宪法》《刑事诉讼法》层面规制搜查与扣押权利;其次,建立司法审查制度;再次,对以往搜查证及其申请的范式内容进行变革,搜查证及其申请必须详细描述搜查对象的特征;第四,对搜查与扣押时间加以规制,并在法定的搜查方式与范围基础上丰富搜查的方法;最后,侦查人员在搜查时需要进行扣押的,可根据搜查证中的具体描述予以扣押,不需另行申请扣押令。In the aspect of criminal law, the power of search and seizure are the third obstacle which criminal law field of human rights protection faces in our country after the high rate of arrest and detention. In the judicial practice, it exists a situation that the investigation organ executing the power of search and seizure often illegally violate the civil rights. In our country, there are flaws in approval of the certificate or order, the time, the means and content about search and seizure law, compared with America, whose constitution and criminal legislation related experience is worth to studying and using for reference. Therefore, search and seizure system should be improved in the following aspects in China： first of all, regulate the power of search and seizure from the constitutional level; secondly, establish judicial review system; thirdly, reform the content of the paradigm for previous search warrant application, the search warrant and its application must describe detailedly that searched object has a particular characteristic; fourthly, regulate the time of search and seizure, and rich search methods on the basis of legal search way and scope; finally, if need to seizure when investigators are searching, it shall be held according to the description of a warrant, does not need to apply for seizure orders separately.

关 键 词：逮捕权 搜查证 扣押令 预审法官 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]